 |
|
|
Online seit:
|
Fri Sep 4 00:25:00 1998
|
If you prefer german. Most of the documents are available in Italian and French too. Please order them as mail.
Mario Angelelli, Rom
• Geoffrey Bindman, London
• Christian Bruschi, Marseille
• Angiolo Gracci, Florenz
• Beate Klarsfeld, Paris
• Hans Langenberg, Utrecht
• Felicia Langer, z.Zt.
Tübingen • Gaetano Pecorella, Mailand
• Arturo Salerni, Rom.
Sitz: Schoolplein - Advokatenkollektief, Schoolplein 5A, 3581 PX
Utrecht
Correspondence in The Federal Republic
of Germany:
Law firm: Heinecke pp., Budapester Straße 49, 20359 Hamburg
Phone: +49-(0)40-439 60 02; Fax: +49-(0)40-439 31 83
Account No. 1251 453 500, Hamburger Sparkasse, BLZ 200 505 50,
Account holder: Gisela Wiese, Keyword: IUK Lübeck
I. The residents of the house at Neue Hafenstrasse
The commission recognises that the surviving former residents of the house, many of whom were seriously injured in the fire, are foreign naturals in most cases subject to immigration restrictions. They are all of necessity witnesses to the tragedy which took place and could be required to give evidence in any legal proceedings which may be required to establish responsibility for it.
The Commission is therefore disturbed by reports that several of the former residents are still facing the possibility of deportation from Germany before even the current legal proceedings brought by the public prosecutor against Safwan Eid have been concluded. Indeed, the Commission is aware that one former resident, Victor Atoe, has already been deported to Nigeria in May 1996. Furthermore, Emmanuel Uwaila has disappeared, apparently in fear of being deported.
To deport potential witnesses or even to allow potential witnesses to remain under threat of deportation before the conclusion of legal proceedings in which their evidence may be relevant undermines the judicial process and is a denial of justice.
We recommend that assurances be given forthwith to all such persons that their continued residence in Germany is secure until all proceedings arousing out of the fire at Neue Hafenstrasse 52 have been finally concluded. Victor Atoe should be permitted to return until that date should be wish to do to. It should be made public that Emmanuel Uwaila will not be deported of punished in the hope that he will feel able to reveal his location.
II. Suspects
The Commission is not in a position to determine the identity of the person or persons responsible for the fire and it would be quite inappropriate for it to attempt to do so. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities operating under the relevant German law. However it is appropriate to express concern at certain aspects of the investigation and what the Commission perceives as an approach which falls short of even-handedness and total objectivity.
It is on the face of it inherently unlikely that a resident of a building would set fire to it and remain in it with the whole of his family - unless of cause he had suicidal as well as homicidal inclinations. The public prosecutor has acknowledged that Safwan Eid , whatever he may have done, had no homicidal intent. The prosecutor has pursued the case, including successful demands to keep the accused in custody for the whole of the period since the fire, against a 20 year old youth who has had only 6 month schooling in Germany, and whose command of the German language is thus poor, on the basis of a single statement said to amount to a confession, alleged to have been made to a single witness while, according to that witness, the accused may well have been in a state of shock following the fire. This alleged confession is relied on notwithstanding evidence of 4 witnesses that immediately after the fire the accused declared that it had been an attack from the outside. Furthermore, the prosecutor ignores a number of discrepancies in the presentation of Safwan Eid's alleged confession given by the paramedic to other persons before he was interviewed by the police.
In contrast, the initial suspects, youths claimed to have neo-Nazi associations or sympathies, were released following the arrest of Safwan Eid, despite the following: -
The Commission has read a statement by the Prosecutor explaining his decision to stay proceedings against these three suspects. All the reasons given by the prosecutor give rise to further questions:
1. The prosecutor says these suspects were in the area of the railway station and not near the scene of crime when the fire started. As it is not known when the fire started and the railway station is only a few minutes' drive from the scene of crime this does not seem conclusive and requires further investigation. On the facts now acknowledged by the prosecutor these suspects have no alibi.
2. The explanation by the suspects for the burned hair on their bodies, which obviously suggest recent presence at the scene of a fire are confused, inconsistent, or lacking in credibility. Nor has the evidence in support of them been pursued. For example, one suspect claimed that he burned his eyebrows and head while attempting to burn a dog (an explanation disputed by another suspect). There is no indication that the dog has been traced. Indeed the prosecutor does not appear to believe the explanations of the accused because he says: "possibly the scorches of the three suspects derived from them setting stolen cars on fire after having taken parts out". None of the suspects themselves made this claim yet they admitted that they were in the habit of stealing cars. There appears to be no evidence whatsoever to support the prosecutors theory.
The Commission is seriously concerned by the apparent reluctance of the prosecutor to pursue these and other obvious lines of investigation regarding these suspects from the nearly town of Grevesmühlen . The contrast between the prosecutor's failure to follow up strong evidence against them and his prosecution of Safwan Eid on the basis of a simple alleged confession is striking and very disturbing.
The Commission recommend that the investigation of the Grevesmühlen suspects be re-opened.
III. The main prosecution witness
In the earlier part of this statement reference has been made to the reliance of the prosecutor at the evidence of the paramedic, a part-time ambulance man present at the scene of fire. It is not for the Commission to dispute the good faith of the paramedic, who is plainly a man who gave valuable and courage service to the victims of the fire. The Commission is concerned, however, that there are inconsistencies in his accounts of what he claims Safwan Eid said to him and there is no independent corroboration of any of those accounts.
More importantly, part of the confession attributed to Safwan Eid is plainly untrue: the statement that "we tipped petrol out at his door, lit it and it then spread burning down the stairs" cannot be true for two reasons:
a) there is no door at the point at which the prosecutors say the fire started;
b) the petrol would have had to travel up a slope for a considerable distance if it had been poured either at the point at which the prosecutors say the fire started.
If part of the confession is demonstrably untrue it surely cannot be safe in the absence of corroboration to rely on another part of the statement as proof of guilt.
It should be added that the explanation claimed by the paramedic to have been given by Safwan Eid for allegedly starting the fire, namely a quarrel with the "head of family", is denied by all those fitting his description as well as Safwan himself, and is not corroborated by any other evidence.
IV. The origin of the fire
The Commission is concerned that uncertainties and disagreements about the origin and starting place of the fire have not been resolved. The public prosecutor appears to have reached the firm conclusion that the fire started at an early stage on the first floor. He also claims incorrectly that Safwan Eid's alleged confession confirms this.
However, the evidence of Professor Achilles indicates the strong possibility that, contrary to the expert evidence relied on by the prosecution, the fire started in the ground floor and, moreover, that it could have been started by intruders or by a person or persons outside the building who threw an incendiary device through a window.
The Commission notes that Professor Achilles has been appointed as expert advisor by the court and anticipates that a further report will be provided by him which will resolve the present conflicts of evidence surrounding the origin of the fire.
However, the Commission has received disturbing informations that the building has not been fully secured by the police and that unauthorised persons have been allowed to enter it with the possible result that vital evidence may be destroyed. Even more disturbing is the rumour that there are plans to demolish the building.
We strongly recommend that steps be taken to ensure that the building is preserved intact until the conclusion of any proceeding arising from the fire.
We also recommend that Professor Achilles, or if more appropriate, another expert of international standing, be invited to advise on guidelines for investigation into suspected arson attacks so as to maximise access to a full and clear explanation of any future incident.
V. The tapping of conversations
The Public Prosecutor listened in on the conversations of Safwan Eid and his relatives in prison.
The Public Prosecutor cites excerpts from these tapped conversations in the charge against Safwan Eid, claiming that they contain a confession by the latter.
The recourse to the tapping of conversations comes as a surprise. Doesn't that contradict the right to private and family life that every person is entitled to, also accused persons? That right is also stated with certain restrictions by Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. In the opinion of the commission, these restriction do not apply in the present case.
We are also surprised by the method of analysing these excerpts chosen by the Public Prosecutor. It is a one-sided analysis aimed at using the excerpts against the accused. Still, not even the Arab language interpreters have agreed on the contents of the excerpts. The result of this tap attack which largely disrespects basic rights does not contain anything proving Safwan's guilt. It only leads to speculations which the Public Prosecutor presents as a confession.
Annex
The comments in this document are based on statements supplied by both prosecutor and defence and the Commission has received assistance from the legal representative of the accused. The Commission invited the public prosecutor to meet them but he declined to do so. The Commission remains ready to meet the public prosecutor and to consider any comments or submission which he would like to make. In particular, they would expect to hear from him if he considers that there are any factual errors in this press release or in the Commission's interim report when it is shortly published.
[Lübeck - Mainpage | IIC - Mainpage | Press - only German | What's New | Index | Feedback ]
mail to CompanyWebmaster
last modified: 03/09/98